Your Guide to the Possible WGA and SAG Strikes

Share.

By Scott B.

If you've been following film news of late &#Array; including here on IGN FilmForce &#Array; you have probably noticed many mentions of the seemingly imminent WGA (Writers Guild of America) and SAG (Screen Actors Guild) strikes. You may have noticed mentions of films being rushed into production in order to beat the strikes; as well, certain projects in development are being discussed as "So-and-so's first post-strike project." No question, these contract negotiations and the possible strikes that may result have huge implications for the film and television industries. But what do they mean? What are the issues at stake? This piece is an attempt to explain, for the average person who's interested in movies but probably not in the industry, what's being negotiated and why these issues are so important to the film professionals involved.

Actor Richard Dreyfus talks to the press after the 2000 SAG commercial strike is resolved.

The first thing that's important to understand is that film and television, like many industries, have unions. The WGA and SAG are both, essentially, labor unions &#Array; organizations created and maintained to protect and negotiate the interests of their members. And, as with any labor union, there are periods that involve a negotiation of a new contract with management. In the case of the film and television industries, that "contract" is an MBA (Minimum Basic Agreement) and "management" is the producers, negotiating with the guilds' through their own organization, the AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers). As with any contract negotiation, one side wants certain changes; the other side may or not be willing to make those changes. If an agreement isn't achieved by the expiration of the old contract... well, that's where the possibility of a strike enters the picture. And strikes &#Array; even in such high-profile industries as film and television &#Array; are not a completely unheard-of occurance. SAG went on strike just last year, although that strike only affected commercials and was ultimately resolved. The WGA last went on strike in 1988; a time when many of the issues being currently being negotiated weren't even a consideration.

One caveat as I proceed to explain some of the issues involved: This piece in no way assumes that WGA or SAG strikes will happen. As anyone familiar with the history of labor relations knows, strikes can &#Array; and have been &#Array; averted at the very last minute. But, as of this writing, issues being negotiated by the two organizations with Hollywood producers have not yet reached a point of agreement (for the record, the current WGA contract expires on May 1, 2001; the current SAG contract expires on June 30, 2001). So a strike is a possibility, but most definitely not a foregone conclusion. In fact, on April 10, it was announced that AMPTP's stalled negotiations with the WGA will reconvene on April 17 (two weeks before the expiration of the contract).

As well, there are many complicated issues involved in both the SAG and WGA negotiations; this piece is merely an attempt to give the general reader an idea of those issues, rather than an in-depth or all-encompassing portrait of every single point being negotiated. Also, while both guilds make compelling arguments for their demands, the producers also have their own set of counter-arguments, which I will attempt to show as well.

For both SAG and the WGA, a key point is the question of residuals. Basically, residuals encompass the money that is paid to those involved in a film (or television show) after initial payment for services has been made. In other words, although a writer or actor is paid for their work on a project, they are entitled to a certain amount of compensation based on the money the project may make. Once upon a time, this was limited strictly to the theatrical run of a film; now, with television and cable and video and even Internet venues available, a movie can be a relative flop at the box-office and still make big money in what were once considered secondary markets.

WGA member Mitch Brian, who works in both television (NBC's miniseries The 70's) and film (the recent James Ellroy adaptation Stay Clean), speaking in an exclusive interview with FilmForce, articulated the residuals situation in this way: "In 1985, a videocassette cost about $14 to manufacture; today, they cost maybe $3. A DVD costs about $2 to manufacture. And those costs of production will probably continue to drop. The amount of units has gone up and the cost of producing them has gone down." Factor in the hugely-expanding Internet market, and there are all sorts of venues that weren't even a consideration a decade ago. Says Brian, again speaking from the writers' point-of-view: "We've been locked into the same profit-sharing agreement since 1985, and that was a totally different world back then." However, the producers see it differently; in a statement on the AMPTP website, the producers state that "the expansion of markets did not result in an automatic increase in profits for either the networks or the production companies. Rather the proliferation of outlets has really meant a fragmentation of the audience &#Array; overall revenues may be higher, but profit margins are smaller." The producers go on to explain, from their perspective, that "while the proliferation of outlets has been a challenge for the producers, it has been a gain for writers and actors, who get paid whether the producers cover their costs or not. Both guilds have seen increases in the amount of available work and higher residual benefits."

Another major consideration, on the part of the WGA, is the question of the "A Film By" credit. Basically, when you see a movie and the credit "A So-and-So Film" or "A Film by So-and-So" pops up, it's mostly likely the name of the director (and most often above the title). The WGA sees that as not only ignoring the collaborative nature of film in general, but also minimizing the role of the writer in favor of maximizing the role of the director. To quote from the WGA website: "Ideally, we would like to see no credit above the title, but at the very least we believe that an above-the-title credit should be, once again, the credit of [Alfred] Hitchcock and [David] Lean. At the same time, we understand how difficult it would be for an individual director to give up that which he or she has already received." While this may all seem a little esoteric and even ego-driven to the average person, it is an understandable sore point: No one ever argued with a credit like "A Stanley Kubrick Film," but it's hard not to be dubious of a credit like "A Joel Schumacher Film." From the producers' point-of-view, this negotiation point presents a serious problem: "That demand flies squarely in the face of a contractual commitment that the studios have made to the Directors Guild, to allow every director the opportunity to negotiate for credit above the minimally-required 'Directed by ______' credit. The Directors Guild would surely claim that the studios were in breach of that commitment if they were to agree to this demand."

Again, all of the above is only a brief sketch of the issues at hand. I have purposely avoided including percentages and figures in the questions of profit-sharing, as those are more meaningful to members of the two guilds, rather than the general reader. But those interested in more specific details are advised to check out the official sites for the the WGA, SAG, and the AMPTP.